This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 01/13 v2] Introduce current_lwp_ptid
- From: Doug Evans <xdje42 at gmail dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Gary Benson <gbenson at redhat dot com>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:12:37 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13 v2] Introduce current_lwp_ptid
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1412848358-9958-1-git-send-email-gbenson at redhat dot com> <1412848358-9958-2-git-send-email-gbenson at redhat dot com> <544F925C dot 20408 at redhat dot com> <CAP9bCMTzML+6ZNjEewyBy4eYsU3OGi0OYjDsP17bRyPqVVJL9A at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Doug Evans <xdje42@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:55 AM, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 10/09/2014 10:52 AM, Gary Benson wrote:
>>> This commit introduces a new function, current_lwp_ptid, that
>>> shared Linux code can use to obtain the ptid of the current
>>> lightweight process.
>>
>> OK.
>
> Hi. The name bothers me enough to speak up.
>
> I'm ok with lwp being a member of ptid, but we're essentially
> replacing "thread" with "lwp".
> Is there a particular reason current_lwp_ptid is chosen over
> current_thread_ptid?
Hi.
In an attempt to answer my own question, I can imagine that "lwp" is
the linux backend's term for "thread". OK.
[This is probably written down somewhere, but a comment to that effect
in the definition of current_lwp_ptid would be helpful.]